able to beget the Father nor the Holy Ghost to Produce either Father or Son and therefore neither of these two Latter is absolutely the Cause of all things but only the First And upon this account was that First of these Three Hypostases who is the Original Fountain of all by Macrobius styled Omnipotentissimus Deus the Most Omnipotent God he therein implying the Second and Third Hypostases Nous and Psyche to be Omnipotent too but not in a perfect Equality with him as within the Deity they are compared together however ad Extra or Outwardly and to Us they being all One are Equally Omnipotent And Plotinus writeth also to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If the First be absolutely Perfect and the First Power then must it needs be the Most Powerful of all Beings other Powers only imitating and partaking thereof And accordingly hereunto would the Platonick Christian further pretend that there are sundry places in the Scripture which do not a little favour some Subordination and Priority both of Order and Dignity in the Persons of the Holy Trinity of which none is more obvious than that of our Saviour Christ My Father is greater than I which to understand of his Humanity only seemeth to be less reasonable because this was no news at all that the Eternal God the Creator of the whole World should be Greater than a Mortal Man born of a woman And thus do divers of the Orthodox Fathers as Athanasius himself St. Basil St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostome with several others of the Latins interpret the same to have been spoken not of the Humanity but the Divinity of our Saviour Christ. Insomuch that Petavius himself expounding the Athanasian Creed writeth in this manner Pater Major Filio ritè catholicè pronuntiatus est à plerisque Veterum Origine Prior sine reprehensione dici solet The Father is in a right Catholick manner affirmed by most of the ancients to be Greater than the Son and he is commonly said also without reprehension to be Before him in respect of Original Whereupon he concludeth the true meaning of that Creed to be this that no Person of the Trinity is Greater or Less than other in respect of the Essence of the Godhead common to them all Quia Vera Deitas in nullo esse aut Minor aut Major potest because the true Godhead can be no where Greater or Less but that notwithstanding there may be some Inequality in them as they are Hic Deus and Haec Persona This God and That Person It is true indeed that many of those ancient Fathers do restrain and limit this Inequality only to the Relation of the Persons one to another as the Father's Begetting and the Son 's being Begotten by the Father and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from both they seeming to affirm that there is otherwise a perfect Equality amongst them Nevertheless several of them do extend this Difference further also as for example St. Hilary a zealous Opposer of the Arians he in his Book of Synods writing thus Siquis Vnum dicens Deum Christum autem Deum ante secula Filium Dei Obsecutum Patri in Creatione omnium non consitetur Anathema sit And again Non exaequamus vel conformamus Filium Patri sed Subjectum intelligimus And Athanasius himself who is commonly accounted the very Rule of Orthodoxality in this Point when he doth so often resemble the Father to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sun or the Original Light and the Son to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Splendour or Brightness of it as likewise doth the Nicene Council and the Scripture it self he seems hereby to imply some Dependence of the Second upon the First and Subordination to it Especially when he declareth that the Three Persons of the Trinity are not to be look'd upon as Three Principles nor to be resembled to Three Suns but to the Sun and its Splendour and its Derivative Light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it appears from the similitude used by us that we do not introduce Three Principles as the Marcionists and Manicheans did we not comparing the Trinity to Three Suns but only to the Sun and its Splendour So that we acknowledge only one Principle As also where he approves of this of Dionysius of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is an Eternal Light which never began and shall never cease to be wherefore thâ—re is an Eternal Splendour also coexistent with him which had no beginning neither but was Alwayes Generated by him shining out before him For if the Son of God be as the Splendour of the Sun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Always Generated then must he needs have an Essential Dependence upon the Father and Subordination to him And this same thing further appears from those other resemblances which the same Dionysius maketh of the Father and the Son approved in like manner also by Athanasius viz. to the Fountain and the River to the Root and the Branch to the Water and the Vapour for so it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appeareth from his Book of the Nicene Synod where he affirmeth the Son to have been begotten of the Essence or Substance of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Splendour of the Light and as the Vapour of the Water adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither the Splendour nor the Vapour is the very Sun and the very Water nor yet is it Aliene from it or a stranger to its nature but they are both Effluxes from the Essence or Substance of them as the Son is an Efflux from the Substance of the Father yet so as that he is no way diminished or lessened thereby Now all these similitudes of the Fountain and the River the Root and the Branch the Water and the Vapour as well as that of the Sun and the Splendour seem plainly to imply some Dependence and Subordination And Dionysius doubtless intended them to that purpose he asserting as Photius informeth us an Inferiority of Power and Glory in the Second as likewise did Origen before him both whose Testimonies notwithstanding Athanasius maketh use of without any censure or reprehension of them Wherefore when Athanasius and the other Orthodox Fathers writing against Arius do so frequently assert the Equality of all the Three Persons this is to be understood in way of opposition to Arius only who made the Son to be Unequal to the Father as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a different Essence from him One being God and the other a Creature they affirming on the contrary that he was Equal to the Father as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Essence with him that is as God and not a Creature Notwithstanding which Equality there might be some Subordination in them as Hic Deus and Haec Persona to use Petavius
also and therefore Plato here makes the Third Hypostasis of his Trinity likewise to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential with the Second as he elsewhere made the Second Co-Essential with the First It is true that by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Opificer in Plato is commonly meant Nous or Intellect his Second Hypostasis Plotinus affirming as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Demiurgus to Plato is Intellect Nevertheless both Amelius and Plotinus and other Platonists called this Third Hypostasis also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Artificer or Opificer of the whole World Some of them making him to be the Second from Mind or Intellect others the Third from the First Good the Supreme Cause of all things who was by Atticus and Amelius styled Demiurgus also Wherefore as was before suggested according to the Genuine and most ancient Platonick Doctrine all these Three Hypostases were the Joynt-Creators of the whole World and of all things besides themselves as Ficinus more than once declares the Tenour thereof Hi Tres uno quodam consensu omnÃa producunt These Three with one common consent produce all things and before him Proclus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things depend upon the First One by Mind and Soul and accordingly we shall conclude in the words of Porphyrius That the True and Real Deity according to Plato extends to Three Divine Hypostases the last whereof is Psyche or Soul From all which it appears that Arius did not so much Platonize as the Nicene Fathers and Athâ—nasius who notwithstanding made not Plato but the Scripture together with Reason deducing natural Consequences therefrom their Foundation And that the Platonick Trinity was a certain Middle thing also betwixt the Doctrine of Sabellius and that of Arius it being neither a Trinity of Words only or Logical Notions or meer Modes but a Trinity of Hâ—postases nor yet a Jumbled Confusion of God and Creature Things Heterousious together neither the Seconâ— nor Thiâ—d of them being Creatures or Made in Time but all Eternal Infinite and Creators But that it may yet more fully appear how far the most Refined Platonick and Parmenidian or Pythagorick Trinity doth either Agree or Disagree with the Scripture-Doctrine and that of the Christian Church in several Ages we shall here further observe Two Things concerning it The First whereof is this That though the Genuine Platonists and Phythagoreans supposed none of their Three Archical Hypostases to be indeed Creatures but all of them Eternal Necessarily Existent and Vniversal or Infinite and consequently Creators of the whole World yet did they nevertheless assert an Essential Dependence of the Second Hypostasis upon the First as also of the Third both upon the First and Second together with a Gradual Subordination in them Thus Plotinus writing of the Generation of the Eternal Intellect which is the Second in the Platonick Trinity and answers to the Son or Word in the Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is always perfect Generates what is Eternal and thâ—t which it Generates is always Less than it self What shall we therefore say of the most Absolutely Perfect Being of all Does that produce nothing from it self or rather does it not produce the Greatest of all things after it Now the Greatest of all things after the most Absolutely Perfect Being is Mind or Intellect and this is Second to it For Mind beholdeth this as its Father and standeth in need of nothing else besides it whereas that First Principle standeth in need of no Mind or Intellect What is Generated from that which is Better than Mind must needs be Mind or Intellect because Mind is better than all other things they being all in order of Nature After it and Juniour to it as Psyche it self or the First Soul for this is also the Word or Energy of Mind as that is the Word and Energy of the First Good Again the same is more particularly declared by him concerning that Third Hypostasis called Psyche that as it Essentially Dependeth upon the Second so is it Gradually Subordinate or some way Inferiour to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfect Intellect Generates Soul and it Being Perfect must needs Generate for so great a Power could not remain Steril But that which is here Begotten also cannot be greater than its Begetter but must needs be Inferiour to it as being the Image thereof Elsewhere the same Philosopher calling the First Hypostasis of this Trinity Vranus the Second Chronos and the Third Zeus as Plato had done before and handsomly Allegorizing that Fable concludes in this manner concerning Chronos or the Second of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he is in a Middle state or degree betwixt his Father who is Greater and his Son who is Less and Inferiour Again the same thing is by that Philosopher thus asserted in general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the things Generated from Eternity or Produced by way of natural Emanation there is no Progress upwards but all Downwards and still a Gradual Descent into Greater Multiplicity We shall cite but only one passage more out of this Philosopher which containeth something of Argumentation in it also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is Generated or Emaneth immediatly from the First and Highest Beings is not the very same thing with it as if it were nothing but that Repeated again and Ingeminated and as it is not the same so neither can it be Better than it From whence it follows that it must needs be Gradually Subordinate and Inferiour to it Which Gradual Subordination and Essential Dependence of the Second and â—hird Hypostases upon the First is by these Platonicks illustrated several ways Ficinus resembles it to the Circulations of Water when some Heavy Body falling into it its Superficies is depressed and from thence every way Circularly Wrinkled Alius saith he sic fermè prostuit ex alio sicut in aqua Circulus dependet à Circulo One of these Divine Hypostases doth in a manner so depend upon another as one Circulation of water depends upon another Where it is observable also that the Wider the Circulating Wave grows still hath it the more Subsidence and Detumescence together with an Abatement of Celerity till at last all becomes plain and smooth again But by the Pagan Platonists themselves each Following Hypostasis is many times said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Print stamp or Impression made by the Former like the Signature of a Seal upon Wax Again it is often called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image and Representation and Imitation which if considered in Audibles then will the Second Hypostasis be look'd upon as the Eccho of an Original Voice and the Third as the Repeated Eccho or Eccho of that Eccho as if both the Second and Third Hypostases were but certain Replications of the First
which also was the Demiurgus the Maker both of other Souls and of the whole World As Plato had before expresly affirmed him to be the Inspirer of all Life and Creator of Souls or the Lord and Giver of Life And likewise declared that amongst all those things which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Congenerous and Cognate with our Humane Souls there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing any where to be found at all like unto it So that Plato though he were also a Star-worshipper and Idolater upon other grounds yet in all probability would he not at all have approved of Plotinus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Souls being of the same Species with that Third Hypostasis of the Divine Triad but rather have said in the Language of the Psalmist It is he that hath made us and not we our selves we are his People and the Sheep of his Pasture Notwithstanding all which a Christian Platonist or Platonick Christian would in all probability Apologize for Plato himself and the ancient and most Genuine Platonists and Pythagoreans after this manner First That since they had no Scriptures Councils nor Creeds to direct their steps in the Darkness of this Mystery and to confine their Language to a Regular Uniformity but Theologized all Freely and Boldly and without any Scrupulosity every one according to his own private apprehensions it is no wonder at all if they did not only speak many times unadvisedly and inconsistently with their own Principles but also plainly wander out of the Right Path. And that it ought much rather to be wondred at that living so long before Christianity as some of them did they should in so Abstruse a Point and Dark a Mystery make so near an approach to the Christian Truth afterwards revealed than that they should any where fumble or fall short of the Accuracy thereof They not only extending the True and Real Deity to Three Hypostases but also calling the Second of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason or Word too as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind or Intellect and likewise the Son of the First Hypostasis the Faâ—her and affirming him to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Artificer and Cause of the whole World and Lastly describing him as the Scripture doth to be the Image the Figure or Character and the Splendour or Brightness of the First This I say our Christian Platonist supposes to be much more wonderful that this so Great and Abstruse a Mystery of Three Eternal Hypostases in the Deity should thus by Pagan Philosophers so long before Christianity have been asserted as the Principle and Original of the whole World it being more indeed than was acknowledged by the Nicene Fathers themselves they then not so much as determining that the Holy Ghost was an Hypostasis much less that he was God But Particularly as to their Gradual Subordination of the Second Hypostasis to the First and of the Third to the First and Second our Platonick Christian doubtless would therefore plead them the more excusable because the Generality of Christian Doctors for the First Three Hundred years after the Apostles times plainly asserted the same as Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus the Author of the Recognitions Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Gregorius Thaumaturgus Dionysius of Alexandria Lactantius and many others All whose Testimonies because it would be too tedious to set down here we shall content our selves only with one of the last mentioned Et Pater Filius Deus est Sed Ille quasi exuberans Fons Hic tanquam defluens ex eo Rivus Ille tanquam Sol Hic tanquam Radius à Sole porrectus Both the Father and the Son is God But he as it were an Exuberant Fountain this as a Stream derived from him He like to the Sun This like to a Ray extended from the Sun And though it be true that Athanasius writing against the Arians does appeal to the Tradition of the Ancient Church and amongst others cites Origen's Testimony too yet was this only for the Eternity and Divinity of the Son of God but not at all for such an Absolute Co-equality of him with the Father as would exclude all Dependence Subordination and Inferiority those Ancients so Unanimously agreeing therein that they are by Petavius therefore taxed for Platonism and having by that means corrupted the Purity of the Christian Faith in this Article of the Trinity Which how it can be reconciled with those other Opinions of Ecclesiastick Tradition being a Rule of Faith and the Impossibility of the Visible Churches Erring in any Fundamental Point cannot easily be understood However this General Tradition or Consent of the Christian Church for Three Hundred years together after the Apostles Times though it cannot Justifie the Platonists in any thing discrepant from the Scripture yet may it in some measure doubtless plead their excuse who had no Scripture Revelation at all to guide them herein and so at least make their Error more Tolerable or Pardonable Moreover the Platonick Christian would further Apologize for these Pagan Platonists after this manner That their Intention in thus Subordinating the Hypostases of their Trinity was plainly no other than to exclude thereby a Plurality of Co-ordinate and Independent Gods which they supposed an absolute Co-equality of them would infer And that they made only so much Subordination of them as was both necessary to this purpose and unavoidable the Juncture of them being in their Opinion so close that there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing Intermedious or that could possibly be Thrust in between them But now again on the otherhand whereas the only ground of the Co-Equality of the Persons in the Holy Trinity is because it cannot well be conceived how they should otherwise all be God since the Essence of the Godhead being Absolute Perfection can admit of no degrees these Platonists do on the contrary contend that notwithstanding that Dependence and Subordination which they commonly suppose in these Hypostases there is none of them for all that to be accounted Creatures but that the General Essence of the Godhead or the Vncreated Nature truly and properly belongeth to them all according to that of Porphyrius before cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Essence of the Godhead proceedeth to Three Hypostases Now these Platonists conceive that the Essence of the Godhead as common to all the Three Hypostases of their Trinity consisteth besides Perfect Intellectuality in these Following things First In Being Eternal which as we have already showed was Plato's Distinctive Character betwixt God and the Creature That whatsoever was Eternal is therefore Vncreated and whatsoever was not Eternal is a Creature He by Eternity meaning the having not only no Beginning but also a Permanent Duration Again In having not a Contingent but Necessary Existence and therefore being Absolutely Vndestroyable which perhaps is included also in the Former Lastly In being not Particular but
School thither who because there is but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Self-Originated Being would unskilfully conclude that the Word or Son of God must therefore needs be a Creature Thus in his Book concerning the Decrees of the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Arians borrowing the word Agennetos from the Pagans who acknowledge only One such make that a pretence to rank the Word or Son of God who is the Creator of all amongst Creatures or things Made Whereas they ought to have learn'd the right signification of that word Agennetos from those very Platonists who gave it them Who though acknowledging their Second Hypostasis of Nous or Intellect to be derived from the first called Tagathon and their Third Hypostasis or Psyche from the Second nevertheless doubt not to affirm them both to be Ageneta or Vncreated knowing well that hereby they detract nothing from the Majesty of the First from whom these Two are derived Wherefore the Arians either ought so to speak as the Platonists do or else to say nothing at all concerning these things which they are ignorant of In which words of Athanasius there is a plain distinction made betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Vnbegotten and Vncreated and the Second Person of the Trinity the Son or Word of God though acknowledged by him not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnbegotten he being Begotten of the Father who is the only Agennetos yet is he here said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncreated he declaring the Platonists thus to have affirmed the Second and Third Hypostases of their Trinity not to be Creatures but Vncreated Which Signal Testimony of Athanasius concerning the Platonick Trinity is a great Vindication of the same We might here further add St. Austin's Confession also that God the Father and God the Son were by the Platonists acknowledged in like manner as by the Christians though concerning the Holy Ghost he observes some difference betwixt Plotinus and Porphyrius in that the Former did Postponere Animae Naturam Paterno Intellectui the Latter Interponere Plotinus did Postpone his Psyche or Soul after the Paternal Intellect but Porphyrius Interponed it betwixt the Father and the Son as a Middle between both It was before observed that St. Cyril of Alexandria affirmeth nothing to be wanting to the Platonick Trinity but only that Homoousiotes of his and some other Fathers in that Age that they should not only all be God or Vncreated but also Three Coequal Individuals under the same Ultimate Species as Three Individual Men he conceiving that Gradual Subordination that is in the Platonick Trinity to be a certain tang of Arianism Nevertheless he thus concludeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Plato notwithstanding was not altogether ignorant of the Truth but that he had the knowledge of the Only begotten Son of God as likewise of the Holy Ghost called by him Psyche and that he would have every way expressed himself rightly had he not been afraid of Anitus and Melitus and that Poyson which Socrates drunk Now whether this were a Fault or no in the Platonists that they did not suppose their Hypostases to be Three Individuals under the same Ultimate Species we leave to others to judge We might here add the Testimony of Chalcidius because he is unquestionably concluded to have been a Christian though his Language indeed be too much Paganical when he calls the Three Divine Hypostases a Chief a Second and a Third God Istius rei dispositio talis mente concipienda est Originem quidem rerum esse Summum Ineffabilem Deum post Providentiam ejus Secundum Deum Latorem Legis utriusque Vitae tam Aeternae quam Temporariae Tertium esse porro Substantiam que Secunda Mens Intellectusque dicitur quasi quaedam Custos Legis Aeternae His Subjectas esse Rationabiles Animas Legi Obsequentes Ministras verò Potestates c. Ergo Summus Deus jubet Secundus ordinat Tertius intimat Animae verò Legem agâ—nt This thing is to be conceived after this manner That the First Original of Things is the Supreme and Ineffable God after his Providence a Second God the Establisher of the Law of Life both Eternal and Temporary And the Third which is also a Substance and called a Second Mind or Intellect is a certain Keeper of this Eternal Law Vnder these Three are Rational Souls Subject to that Law together with the Ministerial Powers c. So that the Sovereign or Supreme God Commands the Second Orders and the Third executes But Souls are Subject to the Law Where Chalcidius though seeming indeed rather more a Platonist than a Christian yet acknowledgeth no such Beings as Henades and Noes but only Three Divine Hypostases and under them Rational Souls But we shall conclude with the Testimony of Theodoret in his Book De Principio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plotinus and Numenius explaining Plato 's Sence declare him to have asserted Three Super-Temporals or Eternals Good Mind or Intellect and the Soul of the Vniverse he calling that Tagathon which to us is Father that Mind or Intellect which to us is Son or Word and that Psyche or a Power Animating and Enlivening all things which our Scriptures call the Holy Ghost And these things saith he were by Plato purloined from the Philosophy and Theology of the Hebrews Wherefore we cannot but take notice here of a Wonderful Providence of Almighty God that this Doctrine of a Trinity of Divine Hypostases should find such Admittance and Entertainment in the Pagan World and be received by the wisest of all their Philosophers before the times of Christianity thereby to prepare a more easie way for the Reception of Christianity amongst the Learned Pagans Which that it proved successful accordingly is undeniably evident from the Monuments of Antiquity And the Juniour Platonists who were most opposite and adverse to Christianity became at length so sensible hereof that besides their other Adulterations of the Trinity before mentioned for the countenancing of their Polytheism and Idolatry they did in all probability for this very reason quite innovate change and pervert the whole Cabala and no longer acknowledge a Trinity but either a Quaternity or a Quinary or more of Divine Hypostases They first of all contending that before the Trinity there was another Supreme and Highest Hypostasis not to be reckoned with the others but standing alone by himself And we conceive the first Innovator in this kind to have been Jamblichus who in his Egyptian Mysteries where he seems to make the Egyptian Theology to agree with his own Hypotheses writeth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before those things which truly are and the Principles of all there is One God Superiour to the First God and King Immovable and always remaining in the Solitude of his own Vnity there being nothing Intelligible nor any thing else mingled with him but he being the
that Arius was a German True and Genuine Platonist Whereas it is most certain from hence that Arius was no Platonist at all and that Petavius himself did not well understand the Platonick Doctrine Had Plato denied the Eternity of his Second Hypostasis called Nous he must have denied the Eternity of Wisedom and Vnderstanding it self this being to him that Wisedom by which God himself is Wise and whereby he made the World With which agreeth also Athanasius Our Lord is Wisedom and not Second to any other Wisedom and The Father of the Word is not himself Word and That was not Word and Wisedom which produced Word and Wisedom This in opposition to Arius who maintained Another Word and Wisedom Senior to that Word and Wisedom in Christ. These Platonists so far from denying the Eternity of the Word that they rather attributed too much to it in making it Self-begotten Wherefore Plato asserting the Eternity of his Second Hypostasis Nous or Logos and not of the World did thereby according to Athanasius his own Doctrine make it to be no Creature Page 575 Nor is there any force at all in that Testimony of Macrobius cited by Petavius to the contrary wherein the First Hypostasis is said to have Created Mind from it self and the Second to have Created Soul because these Ancient Pagans did not confine the word Creare to such a narrow sense as Christians commonly do but used it generally for all manner of Production Petavius his mistake chiefly from that Spurious Trinity of the latter Platonists whose Third God is by themselves called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Creature But this not the Doctrine of the Ancients Page 576 Nevertheless some more Reason to doubt whether Plato's Third Hypostasis were Eternal because in his Timaeus he Generates the Mundane Soul This Controversy decided by supposing a Double Psyche 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mundane and Supra-Mundane Soul the first of these called by Plotinus a Heavenly Venus and a Separate Soul Wherefore though the Lower Venus or Mundane Soul according to Plato made in Time together with the World yet the Higher Divine Soul or Heavenly Venus the Son of Chronus without a Mother his Third Hypostasis Eternal and without Beginning Page 576 577 This further Evident from hence Because Plato in his Epistle to Dionysius affirmeth as well of the Second and Third as of the First that in all those things that are Cognate to our Humane Soul or Creaturely there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing like thereunto Page 577 Secondly The Three Hypostases of Plato's Trinity not onely all Eternall but also Necessarily Existent and Absolutely Unannihilable Nor could the First any more Exist without the Second and Third then the Sun without its Primary Light and Secundary Splendor These according to Plotinus the Three Principles of the Universe so that there could be neither More nor Fewer They also who called the Second Autopator signified thereby the Necessity of its Existence Page 577 578 Thirdly These Three Platonick Hypostases as Eternall and Necessary so likewise Universal or Comprehensive of the Whole World that is Infinite and Omnipotent Therefore called Principles and Causes and Opificers Though Nous or Mind vulgarly lookt upon as the Highest Principle of all things yet Plato set before it One Most Simple Good When Nous said by Plato to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Same Kind with the First Cause of all things this all one as if he had affirmed it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential or Consubstantial with it Pag. 578 579 Plato's Third Hypostasis Psyche or the Superiour Mundane Soul called by him Zeus from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also the Cause and Fountain of Life and the Prince and King of all things And when said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Offspring of the Highest Mind thereby made Consubstantiall with it also So that Plato's whole Trinity Homoousian Page 579 Though by the Demiurgus or Opificer Plato commonly meant the Second Hypostasis Mind or Intellect yet Atticus Amelius Plotinus and others called the Third or the Higher Psyche also by that Name Wherefore according to the Genuine Platonick and Parmenidian Trinity all the Three Hypostases Joynt-Creatours of the whole World Thus Ficinus often and Proclus Porphyrius his Affirmation that the Deity according to Plato Extends to Three Hypostases Ibid. Certain therefore that Arius did not Platonize but rather Athanasius and the Nicene Fathers who notwithstanding made not Plato but the Scriptures their Foundation The Genuine Trinity of Plato and Parmenides a Middle betwixt that of Sabellius and that of Arius it being neither a Trinity of Words and Names as the Former nor an Heteroousious Trinity a Confused Jumble of God and Creature together but Homoousious and Homogeneall all Eternall Necessarily Existent Infinite or Omnipotent and Creatour Page 579 580 But that it may yet more fully appear how far the most refined Platonick and Parmenidian Trinity does either Agree or Disagree with the Scripture and Christian Doctrine Two things further to be Observed concerning it First that the Platonists Universally asserted an Essentiall Dependence of their Second and Third Hypostases upon the First as also a Graduall Subordination in them Thus Plotinus Chronos or the Second Hypostasis is in a Middle State betwixt his Father who is Greater and his Son who is Inferiour And that in this Eternal Generation or Emanation no Progress Vpward but all Downward and a Graduall Descent Page 580 581 More of the Dependence and Graduall Subordination of the Second and Third Hypostases of the Platonick Trinity to the First Each following Hypostasis called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that before it Philo's Offensive Expression That the Logos or Word is the Shadow of God This Gradation commonly Illustrated by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Effulgency or Out-shining Splendor of the Sun Page 581 582 The same further manifested from the severall Distinctive Characters given to each Hypostasis in the True Platonick or Parmenidian Trinity The First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One before all things The Second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One All things as to their Distinct Idea's The Third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Really producing All things The First Unity and Goodness Essentiall the Second Understanding and Wisedom the Third Self-Active Love and Power The First or Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Above Action The Second or Son the Demiurgus The Maker or contriving Architect of the World but an Immovable Nature The Third a Movable Deity and the Immediate Governour of the whole World Amelius his Distinction of them into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Page 582 583 The greatest Difficulty in the distinctive Characters of these Three Platonick Hypostases That Understanding Reason and Wisedom should be made
above all things but that there have been made by him and produced into generation certain other Gods as they call them both Intelligible and Sensible XXVII Neither was this the Opinion of Philosophers and Learned Men only amongst the Pagans but even of the Vulgar also Not that we pretend to give an account of all the most sottish Vulgar amongst them who as they little considered their Religion so probably did they not understand that Mystery of the Pagan Theology hereafter to be declared that Many of their Gods were nothing but several Names and Notions of one Supreme Deity according to its various Manifestations and Effects but because as we conceive this Tradition of One Supreme God did run currant amongst the Generality of the Greek and Latin Pagans at least whether Learned or Unlearned For we cannot make a better judgment concerning the Vulgar and Generality of the ancient Pagans than from the Poets and Mythologists who were the chief Instructers of them Thus Aristotle in his Politicks writing of Musick judgeth of mens Opinions concerning the Gods from the Poets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may learn what opinion men have concerning the Gods from hence because the Poets never bring in Jupiter Singing or Playing upon an Instrument Now we have already proved from sundry Testimonies of the Poets that however they were Depravers of the Pagan Religion yet they kept up this Tradition of one Supreme Deity one King and Father of Gods To which Testimonies many more might have been added as of Seneca the Tragedian Statius Lucan Silius Italicus Persius and Martial but that we then declined them to avoid tediousness Wherefore we shall here content our selves only to set down this Affirmation of Dio Chrysostomus concerning the Theology of the Poets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the Poets call the First and Greatest God the Father universally of all the Rational Kind as also the King thereof Agreeably with which of the Poets do men erect Altars to Jupiter King and stick not to call him Father in their Devotions Moreover Aristotle himself hath recorded this in his Politicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That all men affirmed the Gods to be under a Kingly power or that there is one Supreme King and Monarch over the Gods And Maximus Tyrius declareth that as well the Unlearned as the Learned throughout the whole Pagan world universally agreed in this that there was one Supreme God the Father of all the others Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If there were a meeting called of all these several Trades and Professions a Painter a Statuary a Poet and a Philosopher and all of them were required to declare their sence concerning God do you think that the Painter would say one thing the Statuary another the Poet another and the Philosopher another No nor the Scythian neither nor the Greek nor the Hyperborean In other things we find men speaking very discordantly to one another all men as it were differing from all The same thing is not Good to all nor Evil Honest nor Dishonest For Law and Justice it self are different every where and not only one Nation doth not agree with another therein but also not one City with another City nor one House with another House nor one man with another man nor lastly any one man with himself Nevertheless in this so great war contention and discord you may find every where throughout the whole world One agreeing Law and Opinion That THERE IS ONE GOD THE KING AND FATHER OF ALL and Many Gods the Sons of God Co-reigners together with God These things both the Greek and the Barbarian alike affirm both the Inhabitants of the Continent and of the Sea-coast both the Wise and the Vnwise Nothing can be more full than this Testimony of Maximus Tyrius that the Generality of the Pagan world as well Vulgar and Illiterate as Wise and Learned did agree in this that there was One Supreme God the Creator and Governour of all And to the same purpose was that other Testimony before cited out of Dio Chrysostomus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That concerning the nature of the Gods in General but especially concerning that Prince of all things there was One agreeing Perswasion in the minds of all Mankind as well Barbarians as Greeks Where Dio plainly intimates also that there was a more universal consent of Nations in the belief of One God than of Many Gods It hath been already observed that the several Pagan Nations had vulgarly their peculiar Proper Names for the One Supreme God For as the Greeks called him Zeus or Zen the Latins Jupiter or Jovis so did the Egyptians Africans and Arabians Hammon Which Hammon therefore was called by the Greeks the Zeus of the Africans and by the Latins their Jupiter Whence is that in Cicero's De Natura Deorum Jovis Capitolini Nobis alia species alia Afris Ammonis Jovis the form of the Capitoline Jupiter with us Romans is different from that of Jupiter Ammon with the Africans The Name of the Scythian Jupiter also as Herodotus tells us was Pappaeus or Father The Persians likewise had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Xenophon stiles him their Country Zeus or Jupiter namely Mithras or Oromasdes who in the same Xenophon is distinguished from the Sun and called in Cyrus his Proclamation in the Scripture The Lord God of Heaven who had given him all the Kingdoms of the Earth Thus the Babylonian Bell is declared by Berosus a Priest of his to have been that God who was the Maker of Heaven and Earth And Learned men conceive that Baal which is the same with Bel and signifies Lord was first amongst the Phenicians also a Name for the Supreme God the Creator of Heaven and Earth sometimes called Beel samen The Lord of Heaven As likewise that Molech which signifies King was amongst the Ammonites the King of their Gods and that Marnas the chief God of the Gazites who were Philistines and signifies the Lord of men was that from whence the Cretians derived their Jupiter called the Father of Gods and Men. Origen indeed contended that it was not lawful for Christians to call the Supreme God by any of those Pagan Names and probably for these Reasons because those names were then frequently bestowed upon Idols and because they were contaminated and desiled by Absurd and Impure Fables Nevertheless that learned Father does acknowledge the Pagans really to have meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The God over all by those several Names Which yet Lactantius Firmianus would by no means allow of as to the Roman Jupiter worshipped in the Capitol he endeavouring to confute it after this manner Vana est Persuasio eorum qui nomen Jovis Summo Deo tribuunt Solent enim quidam errores suos hac excusatione defendere qui convicti de Vno Deo cum id negare non possunt ipsum colere affirmant verum hoc sibi placere ut Jupiter nominetur
Three Gods therefore the Second and the Third must of necessity be Inferiour Gods because otherwise they would be Three Independent Gods whereas the Pagan Theology Expresly disclaims a Plurality of Independent and Self-originated Deities But since according to the Principles of Christianity which was partly designed to oppose and bear down the Pagan Polytheism there is One only God to be acknowledged the meaning whereof notwithstanding seems to be chiefly directed against the Deifying of Created Beings or giving Religious Worship to any besides the Uncreated and the Creatour of all moreover since in the Scripture which is the only true Rule and Measure of this Divine Cabala of the Trinity though the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word be said to have been With God that is God the Father and also it self to Be God that is not a Creature yet is it no where called An Other or Second God Therefore cannot we Christians entertain this Pagan Language of a Trinity of Gods but must call it either a Trinity of Divine Hypostases or Subsistences or Persons or the like Nevertheless it is observable that Philo though according to his Jewish Principles he was a zealous Opposer of the Pagan Polytheism and Idolatry yet did he not for all that scruple to call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Word after the Platonick way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Second God as not suspecting this to clash with the Principles of his Religion or that Second Commandment of the Decalogue Thou shalt have no other Gods before my Face possibly because he conceived that this was to be understood of Creature-Gods only whereas his Second God the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word is declared by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eternal and therefore according to the Jewish Theology Vncreated However this Language of a Second and Third God is not so excusable in a Jew as it might be in a Pagan because the Pagans according to the Principles of their Religion were so far from having any Scrupulosity against a Plurality of Gods so long as there was only One Fountain of the Godhead acknowledged that they rather accounted it an honour to the Supreme God as hath been already shewed that he should have Many other not only Titular Gods under him but also such as were Religiously Worshipped Wherefore besides this Second and Third God they also did luxuriate in their other Many Creature-gods And indeed St. Austin doth upon this accompt seem somewhat to excuse the Pagans for this their Trinity of Gods and Principles in these words Liberis enim verbis loquuntur Philosophi nec in rebus ad intelligendum difficillimis offensionem religiosarum aurium pertimescunt Nobis autem ad certam Regulam loqui fas est ne Verborum licentia etiam in rebus quae in his significantur impiam gignat opinionem Nos autem non dicimus Duo vel Tria Principia cum de Deo loquimur sicut nec Duos Deos vel Tres nobis licitum est dicere quamvis de Vnoquoque loquentes vel de Filio vel de Spiritu Sancto etiam singulum quemque Deum esse fateamur The Philosophers use Free Language nor in these things which are extremely difficult to be understood did they at all fear the offending of any Religious and Scrupulous ears But the Case is otherwise with us Christians for we are tied up to Phrases and ought to speak according to a certain Rule lest the licentious use of words should beget a wicked Opinion in any concerning those things that are signified by them That is though this might be in a manner excusable in the Pagans because each of those Three Hypostases is God therefore to call them severally Gods and all of them a Trinity of Gods and Principles they having no such Rule then given them to govern their Language by as this That though the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet are they not Three Gods but One God yet is not this allowable for us Christians to speak of a Second or Third God or Principle or to call the Holy Trinity a Trinity of Gods notwithshanding that when we speak of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Ghost severally we confess each of them to be God And indeed when the Pagans thus spake of a First Second and Third God and no more though having Innumerable other Gods besides they did by this Language plainly imply that these Three Gods of theirs were of a very different kind from all the rest of their Gods that is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Created but Eternal and Vncreated Ones And that many of them did really take this Whole Trinity of Gods for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in general the Divine Numen and sometimes call it the First God too in way of distinction from their Generated Gods will be showed afterward So that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First God was used in different sences by these Pagans sometimes in a larger sence and in way of opposition to all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Generated or Created Gods or the Gods that were made in Time together with the World and sometime again more Particularly in way of distinction from those Two other Divine Hypostases Eternal called by them the Second and Third God Which First of the Three Gods is also frequently by them called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God Emphatically and by way of Excellency they supposing a Gradual Subordination in these Principles Neither was this Trinity of Divine Subsistences only thus ill-languag'd by the Pagans generally when they called it a Trinity of Gods but also the Cabala thereof was otherwise much Depraved and Adulterated by several of the Platonists and Phythagoreans For first the Third of these Three Hypostases commonly called Psyche is by some of them made to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Immediate Soul of the Corporeal World informing acting and enlivening it after the same manner as the Souls of other Animals do their respective Bodies insomuch that this Corporeal World it self as together with its Soul it makes up one Complete Animal was frequently called the Third God This Proclus affirmeth of Numenius the Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the World according to him was the Third God And Plotinus being a great Reader of this Numenius seems to have been somewhat infected by him with this conceit also though contrary to his own Principles from those words befored cited out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World as is commonly said is the Third God Now if the World be not a Creature then is there no Created Being at all but all is God But not only Timaeus Locrus but also Plato himself calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Created God the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being here put for that which after it once was not is brought into
the Intelligible or Archetypal World as making Apollo for Example to be the Intelligible Sun the Idea of the Sensible and Diana the Intelligible Moon and the like for the rest Lastly it hath been observed also that the Egyptian Theologers pretended in like manner to Worship these Intelligible Gods or Eternal Ideas in their Religious Animals as Symbols of them Philo indeed Platonized so far as to suppose God to have made an Archetypal and Intelligible World before he made this Corporeal and Sensible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God intending to make a Visible World first formed an Intelligible One that so having an Incorporeal and most God-like Pattern before him he might make the Corporeal World agreeably to the same this Younger an Image of that Older that should contein as many Sensible kinds in it as the other did Intelligible But it is not possible saith he to conceive this World of Ideas to exist in any place Nay according to him Moses himself philosophized also after the same manner in his Cosmopaeia describing in the First Five Verses of Genesis the making of an Intelligible Heaven and Earth before the Sensible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Creator first of all made an Incorporeal Heaven and an Invisible Earth the Ideas of Air and Vacuum Incorporeal Water and Air and last of all Light which was also the Incorporeal and Intelligible Paradigm of the Sun and Stars and that from whence their Sensible Light is derived But Philo does not plainly make these Ideas of the Intelligible and Archetypal World to be so many distinct Substances and Animals much less Gods though he somewhere takes notice of those who admiring the Pulchritude of both these Worlds did not only Deifie the whole of them but also their several Parts that is the Several Ideas of the Intelligible World also as well as the Greater Parts of the Sensible an Intelligible Heaven and Earth Sun and Moon they pretending to worship those Divine Ideas in all these Sensible things Which high-flown Platonick Notion as it gave Sanctuary and Protection to the grossest and foulest of all the Pagan Superstitions and Idolatries when the Egyptians would worship Brute Animals and other Pagans all the Things of Nature Inanimate Substances and meer Accidents under a pretence of worshipping the Divine Ideas in them so did it directly tend to absolute Impiety Irreligion and Atheism there being few that could entertain any thoughts at all of those Eternal Ideas and scarcely any who could thoroughly perswade themselves that these had so much Reality in them as the Sensible things of Nature as the Idea of a House in the mind of an Architect hath not so much Reality in it as a Material House made up of Stones Mortar and Timber so that their Devotion must needs sink down wholly into those Sensible Things and themselves naturally at length fall into this Atheistick Perswasion That the Good Things of Nature are the only Deities Here therefore have we a Multitude of Pagan Gods Supermundane and Eternal though all depending upon One Supreme the Gods by them properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intelligible or the Divine Ideas And we cannot but account this for another Depravation of the ancient Mosaick Cabbala of the Trinity that the Second Hypostasis thereof is made to be the Archetypal World and all the Divine Ideas as so many distinct Substances Animals and Gods that is not One God but a whole World of Gods But over and besides all this some of these Platonists and Pythagoreans did further Deprave and Adulterate the ancient Hebrew or Mosaick Cabbala of the Trinity the certain Rule whereof is now only the Scriptures of the New Testament when they concluded that as from the Third Hypostasis of their Trinity called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Soul there were Innumerable other Particular Souls derived namely the Souls of all Inferiour Animals that are Parts of the World so in like manner that from their Second Hypostasis called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Mind or Intellect there were innumerable other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Particular Minds or Intellects Substantial Derived Superiour to the First Soul and not only so but also That from that First and Highest Hypostasis of all called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The One and The Good there were derived likewise many Particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnities and Goodnesses Substantial Superiour to the First Intellect Thus Proclus in his Theologick Institutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the First One and from it there are many Particular Henades or Vnities after the First Intellect and from it many Particular Noes Minds or Intellects after the First Soul many Particular and Derivative Souls and lastly after the Vniversal Nature many Particular Natures and Spermatick Reasons Where it may be obiter observed that these Platonists supposed below the Vniversal Psyche or Mundane Soul a Vniversal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Substantial Nature also but so as that besides it there were other Particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seminal Reasons or Plastick Principles also As for these Noes and that besides the First Vniversal Mind or Intellect there are other Particular Minds or Intellects Substantial a Rank of Beings not only immutably Good and Wise but also every way Immovabl◠and therefore above the Rank of all Souls that are Self-moveable Beings Proclus was not singular in this but had the concurrence of many other Platonists with him amongst whom Plotinus may seem to be one from this Passage of his besides others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Souls are Immortal and every Mind or Intellect we have elsewhere largely proved Upon which words Ficinus thus Hîc suprà infrà saepè per verba Plotini notabis Plures esse Mentium Animarumque Substantias inter se distinctas quamvis inter eas Vnio sit Mirabilis Here and from many other places before and after you may observe that according to Plotinus there are many Substantial Minds distinct from Souls though there be a wonderful Vnion betwixt them Moreover that there was also above these Noes or Immovable but Multiform Minds not only one Perfect Monad and First Good but also a Rank of Many Particular Henades or Monades and Agathotetes was besides Proclus and others asserted by Simplicius also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Highest Good saith he produceth all things from himself in several Ranks and Degrees The First the Middle and the Last or Lowest of all But the First and the next to himself doth he produce like himself One Goodness Many Goodnesses and one Vnity or Henade Many Henades And that by these Henades and Autoagathotetes he means Substantial Beings that are Conscious of themselves appears also from these following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those Beings which are first produced from the First Good by reason of their Sameness of Nature with him are
but of Kind Which Vnity of the Common or General Essence of the Godhead is the same thing also with that Equality which some of the Ancient Fathers so much insist upon against Arius namely An Equality of Nature as the Son and Father are both of them alike God that Essence of the Godhead which is Common to all the Three Persons being as all other Essences supposed to be Indivisible From which Equality it self also does it appear that they acknowledged no Identity of Singular Essence it being absurd to say that One and the self same thing is Equal to it self And with this Equality of Essence did some of these Orthodox Fathers themselves imply that a certain Inequality of the Hypostases or Persons also in their mutual Relation to one another might be consistent As for example St. Austin writing thus against the Arians Patris ergo Filii Spiritus Sancti etiamsi disparem cogitant Potestatem Naturam saltem confiteantur Aequalem Though they conceive the Power of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Vnequal yet let them for all that confess their Nature at least to be Equal And St. Basil likewise Though the Son be in Order Second to the Father because produced by him and in Dignity also forasmuch as the Father is the Cause and Principle of his being yet is he not for all that Second in Nature because there is One Divinity in them both And that this was indeed the meaning both of the Nicene Pathers and of Athanasius in their Homoousiotes their Coessentiality or Con-substantiality and Coequality of the Son with the Father namely their having both the same Common Essence of the Godhead or that the Son was No Creature as Arius contended but truly God or Vncreated likewise will appear undeniably from many passages in Athanasius of which we shall here mention only some few In his Epistle concerning the Nicene Council he tells us how the Eusebian Faction subscribed the Form of that Council though afterward they recanted it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the rest subscribing the Eusebianists themselves subscribed also to these very words which they now find fault with I mean Of the Essence or Substance and Coessential or Consubstantial and that the Son is no Creature or Facture or any of the Things Made but the Genuine Off-spring of the Essence or Substance of the Father Afterwards he declareth how the Nicene Council at first intended to have made use only of Scripture Words and Phrases against the Arians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As that Christ was the Son of God and not from nothing but from God the Word and Wisdom of God and consequently no Creature or thing Made But when they perceived that the Eusebian Faction would evade all those Expressions by Equivocation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They conceived themselves necessitated more plainly to declare what they meant by being From God or Out of him and therefore added that the Son was Out of the Substance of God thereby to distinguish him from all Created Beings Again a little after in the same Epistle he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synod perceiving this rightly declared that the Son was Homoousious with the Father both to cut off the Subterfuges of Hereticks and to show him to be different from the Creatures For after they had decreed this they added immediately They who say that the Son of God was from things that are not or Made or Mutable or a Creature or of another Substance or Essence all such does the Holy and Catholick Church Anathematize Whereby they made it Evident that these Words Of the Father and Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father were opposed to the Impiety of those expressions of the Arians that the Son was a Creature or thing Made and Mutable and that he was not before he was Made which he that affirmeth contradicteth the Synod but whosoever dissents from Arius must needs consent to these Forms of the Synod In this same Epistle to cite but one passage more out of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Brass and Gold Silver and Tin are alike in their shining and colour nevertheless in their Essence and Nature are they very different from one another If therefore the Son be such then let him be a Creature as we are and not Coessential or Consubstantial but if he be a Son the Word Wisdom Image of the Father and his Splendour then of right should he be accounted Coessential and Consubstantial Thus in his Epistle concerning Dionysius we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Son 's being one of the Creatures and his not being Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father put for Synonymous expressions which signifie one and the samething Wherefore it semeeth to be unquestionably evident that when the Ancient Orthodox Fathers of the Christian Church maintained against Arius the Son to be Homoousion Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father though that word be thus interpreted Of the same Essence or Substance yet they Universally understood thereby not a Sameness of Singular and Numerical but of Common or Vniversal Essence only that is the Generical or Specifical Essence of the Godhead that the Son was no Creature but truly and properly God But if it were needful there might be yet more Testimonies cited out of Athanasius to this purpose As from his Epistle De Synodis Arimini Seleuciae where he writeth thus concerning the Difference betwixt those Two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Like Substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Same Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For even your selves know that Similitudes is not Predicated of Essences or Substances but of Figures and Qualities only But of Essences or Substances Identity or Sameness is affirmed and not Similitude For a man is not said to be Like to a man in respect of the Essence or Substance of Humanity but only as to Figure or Form they being said as to their Essence to be Congenerous of the same Nature or Kind with one another Nor is a man properly said to be Vnlike to a Dog but of a Different Nature or Kind from him Wherefore that which is Congenerous of the same Nature Kind or Species is also Homoousion Coessential or Consubstantial of the same Essence or Substance and that which is of a different Nature Kind or Species is Heterousion of a different Essence or Substance Again Athanasius in that Fragment of his Against the Hypocrisie of Meletius c. concerning Consubstantiality writeth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He that denies the Son to be Homoousion Consubstantial with the Father affirming him only to be like to him denies him to be God In like manner he who reteining the word Homousion or Consubstantial interprets it notwithstanding only of Similitude or Likeness in
Trinity was doubtless Anti-Arian or else the Arian Trinity Anti-Platonick the Second and Third Hypostases in the Platonick Trinity being both Eternal Infinite and Immutable And as for those Platonick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gradations so much spoken of these by St. Cyril's leave were of a different Kind from the Arian there being not the Inequality of Creatures in them to the Creator Wherefore Socrates the Ecclesiastick Historian not without Cause wonders how those Two Presbyters Georgius and Timotheus should adhere to the Arian Faction since they were accounted such great Readers of Plato and Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems to me wonderful how those Two Persons should persist in the Arian Perswasion one of them having always Plato in his hands and the other continually breathing Origen Since Plato no where affirmeth his First and Second Cause as he was wont to call them to have had any beginning of their Existence and Origen every where confesseth the Son to be Coeternal with the Father Besides which Another Reason for this Apology of the Christian Platonist was because as the Platonick Pagans after Christianity did approve of the Christian Doctrine concerning the Logos as that which was exactly agreeable with their own so did the Generality of the Christian Fathers before and after the Nicene Council represent the Genuine Platonick Trinity as really the same thing with the Christian or as approaching so near to it that they differed chiefly in Circumstances or the manner of Expression The Former of these is Evident from that famous Passage of Amelius Contemporary with Plotinus recorded by Eusebius St. Cyril and Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this was the Logos or Word by whom Existing from Eternity according to Heraclitus all things were made and whom that Barbarian also placeth in the rank and dignity of a Principle affirming him to have been with God and to be God and that all things were made by him and that whatsoever was made was Life and Being in him As also that he descended into a Body and being cloathed in Flesh appeared as a Man though not without demonstration of the Divinity of his Nature But that afterwards being Loosed or Separated from the same he was Deified and became God again such as he was before he came down into a Mortal Body In which words Amelius speaks favourably also of the Incarnation of that Eternal Logos And the same is further manifest from what St. Austin writeth concerning a Platonist in his time Initium Sancti Evangelii cui nomen est secundum Johannem quidam Platonicus sicut à sancto Sene Simpliciano qui posteà Mediolanensi Ecclesiae praesedit Episcopus solebamus audire aureis Literis conscribendum per omnes Ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat We have often heard from that holy man Simplicianus afterward Bishop of Millain that a certain Platonist affirmed the beginning of St. John 's Gospel deserved to be writ in Letters of Gold and to be set up in all the most Eminent places throughout the Christian Churches And the latter will sufficiently appear from these following Testimonies Justin Martyr in his Apology affirmeth of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That he gave the Second place to the Word of God and the Third to that Spirit which is said to have moved upon the waters Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of that Passage in Plato's Second Epistle to Dionysius concerning the First Second and Third writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I understand this no otherwise than that the Holy Trinity is signified thereby the Third being the Holy Ghost and the Second the Son by whom all things were made according to the Will of the Father Origen also affirmeth the Son of God to have been plainly spoken of by Plato in his Epistle to Hermias and Coriscus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus who pretendeth to know all things and who citeth so many other passages out of Plato doth purposely as I suppose dissemble and conceal that which he wrote concerning the Son of God in his Epistle to Hermias and Coriscus where he calls him the God of the whole Vniverse and the Prince of all things both present and future afterwards speaking of the Father of this Prince and Cause And again elsewhere in that Book he writeth to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither would Celsus here speaking of Chistians making Christ the Son of God take any notice of that passage in Plato 's Epistle before mentioned concerning the Framer and Governour of the whole world as being the Son of God lest he should be compelled by the Authority of Plato whom he so often magnifieth to agree with this Doctrine of ours that the Demiurgus of the whole World is the Son of God but the First and Supreme Deity his Father Moreover St. Cyprian or who ever were the Author of the Book inscribed De Spiritu Sancto affirmeth the Platonists First and Vniversal Psyche to be the same with the Holy Ghost in the Christian Theology in these words Hujus Sempiterna Virtus Divinitas cum in propria natura ab Inquisitoribus Mundi antiquis Philosophis propriè investigari non posset Subtilissimis tamen intuiti conjecturis Compositionem Mundi distinctis Elementorum affectibus praesentem omnibus Animam adfuisse dixerunt quibus secundum genus ordinem singulorum vitam praeberet motum intransgressibiles figeret Metas Stabilitatem assignaret Vniversam hanc Vitam hunc motum hanc rerum Essentiam Animam Mundi vocaverunt In the next place Eusebius Caesariensis gives a full and clear Testimony of the Concordance and Agreement of the Platonick at least as to the main with the Christian Trinity which he will have to have been the Cabala of the ancient Hebrews thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Oracles of the Hebrews placing the Holy Ghost after the Father and the Son in the Third Rank and acknowledging a Holy and Blessed Trinity after this manner so as that this Third Power does also transcend all Created Nature and is the First of those Intellectual Substances which proceed from the Son and the Third from the First Cause see how Plato Enigmatically declareth the same things in his Epistle to Dionysius in these words c. These things the Interpreters of Plato refer to a First God and to a Second Cause and to a Third the Soul of the World which they call also The Third God And the Divine Scriptures in like manner rank the Holy Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the place or degree of a Principle But it is most observable what Athanasius himself affirmeth of the Platonists that though they derived the Second Hypostasis of their Trinity from the First and the Third from the Second yet they supposed both their Second and Third Hypostases to be Vncreated and therefore does he send the Arians to
Paradigm of that God truly Good which is Self-begotten and his own Parent For this is greater and before him and the Fountain of all things the foundation of all the first Intelligible Ideas Wherefore from this one did that Self sufficient God who is Autopator or his own Parent cause himself to shine forth for this is also a Principle and the God of Gods a Monad from the first One before all Essence Where so far as we can understand Jamblichus his meaning is that there is a Simple Vnity in order of Nature before that Tagathon or Monad which is the First of the Three Divine Hypostases And this Doctrine was afterward taken up by Proclus he declaring it in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato every where ascends from multitude to Vnity from whence also the order of the Many proceeds but before Plato and according to the Natural order of things One is before Multitude and every Divine order begins from a Monad Wherefore though the Divine Number proceed in a Trinity yet before this Trinity must there be a Monad Let there be Three Demiurgical Hypostases nevertheless before these must there be One because none of the Divine orders begins from Multitude We conclude that the Demiurgical Number does not begin from a Trinity but from a Monad standing alone by it self before that Trinity Here Proclus though endeavouring to gain some countenance for this doctrine out of Plato yet as fearing lest that should fail him does he fly to the order of Nature and from thence would infer that before the Trinity of Demiurgick Hypostases there must be a Single Monad or Henad standing alone by it self as the Head thereof And St. Cyril of Alexandria who was Juniour to Jamblichus but Senior to Proclus seems to take notice of this Innovation in the Platonick Theology as a thing then newly crept up and after the time of â—orphyry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But those before mentioned contradict this Doctrine of Porphyrius the ancient Platonists affirming that the Tagathon ought not to be connumerated or reckoned together with those which proceed from it but to be exempted from all Communion because it is altogether Simple and uncapable of any Commixture or Consociation with any other Wherefore these begin their Trinity with Nous or Intellect making that the First The only difference here is that Jamblichus seems to make the first Hypostasis of the Trinity after a Monad to be Tagathon but St. Cyril Nous. However they both meant the same thing as also did Proclus after them Wherefore it is evident that when from the time of the Nicene Council and Athanasius the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity came to be punctually stated and settled and much to be insisted upon by Christians Jamblichus and other Platonists who were great Antagonists of the same perceiving what advantage the Christians had from the Platonick Trinity then first of all Innovated this Doctrine introducing a Quaternity of Divine Hypostases instead of a Trinity the First of them being not Coordinate with the other Three nor Consociated or Reckoned with them But All of them though Subordinate yet Universal and such as Comprehend the whole that is Infinite and Omnipotent and therefore none of them Creatures For it is certain that before this time or the Age that Iamblichus lived in there was no such thing at all dream'd of by any Platonist as an Vnity before and above the Trinity and so a Quaternity of Divine Hypostases Plotinus positively determining that there could neither be More nor Fewer than Three and Proclus himself acknowledging the Ancient Tradition or Cabala to have run only of Three Gods and Numenius who was Senior to them both writing thus of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he also before Plato Asserted Three Gods that is Three Divine Hypostases and no more as Principles therein following the Pythagoreans Moreover the same Proclus besides his Henades and Noes before mentioned added certain other Phantastick Trinities of his own also as this for example of the First Essence the First Life and the First Intellect to omit others whereby that Ancient Cabala and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theology of Divine Tradition of Three Archical Hypostases and no more was disguised perverted and adulterated But besides this Advantage from the ancient Pagan Platonists and Pythagoreans admitting a Trinity into their Theology in like manner as Christianity doth whereby Christianity was the more recommended to the Philosophick Pagans there is another Advantage of the Same extending even to this present time probably not Unintended also by Divine Providence That whereas Bold and Conceited Wits precipitantly condemning the Doctrine of the Trinity for Nonsence absolute R. pugnancy to Humane Faculties and Impossibility have thereupon some of them quite shaken off Christianity and all Revealed Religion professing only Theism others have frustrated the Design thereof by Pagmizing it into Creature-Worship or Idolatry this Ignorant and Conceited Confidence of both may be retunded and confuted from hence because the most ingenious and acute of all the Pagan Philosophers the Platonists and Pythagoreans who had no byass at all upon them nor any Scripture Revelation that might seem to impose upon their Faculties but followed the free Sentiments and Dictates of their own Minds did notwithstanding not only entertain this Trinity of Divine Hypostases Eternal and Vncreated but were also fond of the Hypothesis and made it a main Fundamental of their Theology It now appears from what we have declared that as to the Ancient and Genuine Platonists and Pythagoreans none of their Trinity of Gods or Divine Hypostases were Independent so neither were they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Creature-Gods but Vncreated they being all of them not only Eternal and Necessarily Existent and Immutable but also Vniversal that is Infinite and Omnipotent Causes Principles and Creators of the whole World From whence it follows that these Platonists could noâ— justly be taxed for Idolatry in giving Religious Worship to each Hypostâ—sis of this their Trinity And we have the rather insisted so long upon this Platonick Trinity because we shall make use of this Doctrine afterwards in our Defence of Christianity where we are to show That one Grand Design of Christianity being to abolish the Pagan Idolatry or Creature-Worship it self cannot justly be charged with the same from that Religious Worship given to our Saviour Christ and the Trinity the Son and Holy Ghost they being none of them according to the true and Orthodox Christianity Creatures however the Arian Hypothesis made them such And this was indeed the Grand Reason why the Ancient Fathers so zealously opposed Arianism because That Christianity which was intended by God Almighty for a means to extirpate Pagan Idolatry was thereby it self Paganized and Idolatrized and made highly guilty of that very thing which it so much condemned in the Pagans that is Creature-Worship This might be proved by sundry testimonies of Athanasius Basil Gregory Nyssen
Account which the Scripture it self giveth us of the Resurrection and First in General when S. Paul Answering that Querie of the Philosophick Infidel How are the dead raised or with what Body do they come Replieth in this manner Thou Fool that is thou who thinkest to puzzle or baffle the Christian Article of the Resurrection which thou understandest not That which thou sowest is not Quickened to the Production of any thing except it first die to what it was And thou sowest not that Body that shall be but bare Grain as of Wheat or of Barley or the like but God in the ordinary course of Nature giveth it a Body as it hath pleased him that is a Stalk and an Eare having many Grains with Husks in it and therefore neither in Quantity nor Quality the same with that which was Sowed under Ground Nor does he give to all Seeds one and the same kind of Body neither but to every seed it s own correspondent Body as to Wheat one kind of Eare and to Barley another As if he should have said Know that this Present Body of ours is to be look'd upon but as a kind of Seed of the Resurrection-Body which therefore is accordingly in some sense the Same and in some sense not the Same with it Besides which General Account the Particular Oppositions which the Scripture makes betwixt the Present and Future Body seem very agreeable to those of the Philosophick Cabala For First the Present Body is said to be Sowed in Corruption but the Future Raised in Incorruption For the Children of the Resurrection cannot die any more And then Mortality shall be swallowed up of Life Wherefore the Christian Resurrection-Body as well as that of the Philosophick Cabala is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too 2 Cor. 5.1 an Immortal and Eternal Body Again the Body Sowed is said to be a Dishonourable Ignominious and Inglorious Body and therefore called also by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Body of our Humility or Humiliation A Body agreeable to this Lapsed State of the Soul But the Body which shall be Raised shall be a Glorious Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conformable to that Glorious Body of Christ. Who when he was but Externally Transfigured his Face did shine as the Sun and his Raiment was white as the Light The Glory of a Body consisteth only in the Comliness of its Proportion and the Spendor thereof Thus is there one Glory of the Sun and another Glory of the Moon and another Glory of the Stars that is a different Splendor of them Wherefore the Future Body of the Righteous according to the Scripture also as well as the Philosophick Cabala will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Glorious Splendid Luciform and Star-like Body Wisd. 3.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Righteous in the time of their Visitation shall shine forth Daniel 12. the 2. and 3. They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the Firmament and they that turn many to Righteousness as the Stars for ever and ever And Matthew the 13.43 Then shall the Righteous shine forth as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father And therefore probably this Future Glorious Resurrection Body is that Inheritance of the Saints in Light which the Scripture speaks of Col. 1. the 12. Moreover there is another difference betwixt this Present and that Future Body of the Righteous wherein S. Paul and Hierocles do well agree the First being called by both of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Animal Body The Second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Spiritual Body Which latter expression in Scripture does not only denote the Subtlety and Tenuity thereof but also as this Present Body is called an Animal Body because it is suitable and agreeable to that Animal Life which men have Common with Brutes so is that Future called Spiritual as bearing a fit proportion and correspondency to Souls renewed in the Spirit of their Mind or in whom the Divine Spirit Dwelleth and Acteth exercising its Dominion There is an Animal Body and there is a Spiritual Body And the First Adam was made a Living Soul the Last Adam a Quickning Spirit And thus are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scripture taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who have not the Spirit And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Animal Man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God Which Spirit is also said in Scripture to be the Earnest of that our Future Inheritance Ephesians the 1. the 14. and the Earnest of this Spiritual and Heavenly Body 2 Corinth the 5. the 5. It is also said to be that by which Efficiently these Mortal Bodies shall be Quickened Romans the 8. the 11. If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also Quicken your Mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you Neither doth Hierocles fall much short of this Scripture Notion of a Spiritual Body when he describes it to be that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is Agreeable to the Intellectual Perfection of the Soul This Spiritual Body is that which the Ancient Hebrews called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eagles Wings We reading thus in the Gemara of the Sanhedrin c. 11. fol. 92. col 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you Ask what shall become of the Righteous when God shall renew the world the Answer is God shall make them wings like Eagles whereby they shall fly upon the Face of the Waters Again as this Present Body is called in Scripture an Earthly Body so is the Future Body of the Righteous styled by S. Paul as well as the Pythagoreans a Heavenly Body and they who shall then be possessors thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heavenly men 1 Cor. 15. As is the Heavenly such are they that are Heavenly Besides which as Philosophers supposed both Demons or Angels and Men to have one and the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a like Lucid Heavenly and Etherial Body so from that of our Saviour when he affirmeth that they who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the Resurrection from the dead will neither Marry nor be given in Marriage nor can die any more for they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal to the Angels from hence I say we may venture to call this Resurrection-Body of the Just also an Angelical or Isangelical Body and the rather because the Ancient Hebrews as we learn from Nachmonides in Shaar Haggemul styled it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Angelical Clothing of the Soul and Tertullian himself Angelificatam Carnem Angelified Flesh. But Lastly S. Paul is not only Positive in his Doctrine here but also Negative Now this I say brethren that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither doth Corruption inherit
Origenick Hypothesis the same with the Pythagorick That in Angels there is a Complication of Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance both together or that they are Animals consisting of Soul and Body We shall now make it appear that the Greater part of the Ancient Fathers were for neither of the Two fore-mentioned Extreams Either That Angels were wholly Incorporeal or that they were wholly Corporeal but rather for the Middle Hypothesis That they Had Bodies and yet Were not Bodies But as other Terrestrial Animals Spirits or Souls Clothed with Etherial or Aerial Bodies And that the Generality of the Ancient and most Learned Fathers did not conceive Angels to be meer Vnbodied Spirits is unquestionably Evident from hence because they agreed with the Greek Philosophers in that Conceit that Evil Demons or Devils were therefore delighted with the Blood and Nidours of Sacrifices as having their more Gross Aiery and Vaporous Bodies nourished and refreshed with those Vapours which they did as it were Luxuriate and Gluttonize in For thus does Porphyrius write concerning them in his Book De Abstinentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are they who take pleasure in the Incense Fumes and Nidours of Sacrifices wherewith their Corporeal and Spirituous Part is as it were Pinguified for this Lives and is Nourished by Vapours and Fumigations And that before Porphyrius many other Pagan Philosophers had been of the same Opinion appeareth from this of Celsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We ought to give Credit to wise men who affirm that most of these Lower and Circumterraneous Demons are delighted with Geniture Bloud and Nidour and such like things and much gratified therewith though they be not able to do any thing more in way of recompence then sometimes perhaps to cure the Body or to foretel good and evil Fortunes to Men and Cities Upon which account himself though a zealous Pagan perswadeth men to moderation in the Use of these Sacrifices as Principally gratifying the Inferiour and Worser Demons only In like manner Origen frequently insisteth upon the same thing he affirming that Devils were not only delighted with the Idolatry of the Pagans in their Sacrifices but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That their very Bodies were Nourished by the Vapours and Fumes arising from them and that these Evil Demons therefore did as it were Deliciate and Epicurize in them And before Origen most of the Ancient Fathers as Justine Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Tertullian c. and also many others after him endeavour to disparage those Material and Bloody Sacrifices upon the same Account as things whereby Evil Demons were principally Gratified We shall here only cite one passage to this purpose out of St. Basil or who ever were the Author of that Commentary upon Isaiah because there is something Philosophick in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifices are things of no small pleasure and advantage to Demons because the Blood being evaporated by Fire and so attenuated is taken into the Compages and Substances of their Bodies The whole of which is throughout nourished with Vapours not by Eating and Stomachs or such like Organs but as the Hairs and Nayls of all Animals and whatsoever other things Receive nourishment into their whole Substance And thus do we see it undeniably manifest that many of the Ancient Fathers supposed Devils to have Bodies neither can it at all be doubted but that they concluded the same of Angels too these being both of the same kind and differing but as Good and Evil men And though they do not affirm this of Good Angels but of Devils only that they were thus Delighted and Nourished with the Fumes and Vapours of Sacrifices and that they Epicurized in them yet was not the reason hereof because they conceived them to be altogether Incorporeal but to have Pure Etherial or Heavenly Bodies it being proper to those Gross and Vaporous Bodies of Demons only to be Nourished and Refreshed after that manner And Now that all these Ancient Fathers did not suppose either Angels or Devils to be altogether Corporeal or to have nothing but Body in them may be concluded from hence because many of them plainly declared the Souls of Men to be Incorporeal and therefore it cannot be imagined that they should so far degrade Angels below Men as not to acknowledge them to have any thing at all Incorporeal But we shall now Instance in some few amongst many of these Ancients who plainly asserted both Devils and Angels to be Spirits Incorporate and not to Be meer Bodies but only to Have Bodies that is to consist of Soul and Body or Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance joyned together That Angels themselves Have Bodies is every where declared by St. Austine in his Writings he affirming that the Bodies of Good men after the Resurrâ—ction shall be Qualia sunt Angelorum Corpora Such as are the Bodies of Angels and that they shall be Corpora Angelica in Societate Angelorum Angelical Bodies fit for Society and Converse with Angels and declaring the difference betwixt the Bodies of Angels and of Devils in this manner Daemones antequam transgrederentur Coelestia Corpora gerebant quae conversa sint ex poena in Aeream Qualitatem ut jam possint ab Igne Pati That though Devils before the Transgression had Celestial Bodies as Angels now have yet might these afterwards in way of Punishment be changed into Aerial ones and such as now may suffer by Fire Moreover the same St. Austin some where calleth Good Angels by the name of Animae Beatae atque Sanstae Happy and Holy Souls And though it be true that in his Retractations he recalleth and correcteth this yet was this only a Scrupulosity in that Pious Father concerning the meer word because he no where found in Scripture Angels called by the name of Souls it being far from his meaning even there to deny them to be Incorporeal Spirits joyned with Bodies And certainly he who every where concludes Humane Souls to be Incorporeal cannot be thought to have supposed Angels to have nothing at all but Body in them Again Claudianus Mamertus writing against Faustus who made Angels to be meer Bodies without Souls or any thing Incorporeal maintaineth in way of Opposition not that they are meer Incorporeal Spirits without Bodies which is the other Extream but that they consist of Corporeal and Incorporeal Soul and Body Joyned together he writing thus of the Devils Diabolus ex Duplici diversaque Substantia constat Corporeus est Incorporeus The Devil consisteth of a double and different Substance he is Corporeal and he is also Incorporeal And again of Angels Patet Beatos Angelos Vtriusque Substantiae Incorporeos esse in ea sui parte qua ipsis Visibilis Deus in ea itidem Parte Corporeos qua hominibus sunt ipsi Visibiles It is manifest that the blessed Angels are of a Two-fold Substance that they are Incorporeal in that part of theirs
sermone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indicatur qui Graecis vel Gentilibus auctoribus ostenditur quum de Incorporeâ Naturâ à Philosophis disputatur In hoc enim Libello Incorporeum Daemonium dixit pro eo quod ipse ille quicunque est habitus vel circumscriptio Daemonici Corporis non est similis huic nostro Crassiori vel Visibili Corpori sed secundum sensum ejus qui composuit illam Scripturam intelligendum est quod dixit non esse tale Corpus quale habent Daemones quod est naturaliter Subtile velut Aura Tenue propter hoc vel imputatur à multis vel dicitur Incorporeum sed habere se Corpus Solidum Palpabile The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Incorporeal is not to be taken here in that sense wherein it is used by the Greek and Gentile Writers when they Philosophised concerning the Incorporeal Nature But a Demon is here said to be Incorporeal because of the Disposition of the Demoniack Body not like to this Gross and Visible Body of ours So that the sense is as if Christ should have said I have not such a Body as the Demons have which is naturally Subtle Thin and Soft as the Air and therefore is either supposed to be by many or at least called Incorporeal but the Body which I now have is Solid and Palpable Where we see plainly that Angels though supposed to have Bodies may notwithstanding be called Incorporeal by reason of the Tenuity and Subtlety of those Bodies comparatively with the Grossness and Solidity of these our Terrestrial Bodies But that indeed which now most of all inclineth some to this Perswasion That Angels have nothing at all Corporeal hanging about them is a Religious regard to the Authority of the Third Lateran Council having passed its Approbation upon this Doctrine as if the Seventh Oecumenical so called or Second Nicene wherein the contrary was before owned and allowed were not of equal force at least to counterbalance the other But though this Doctrine of Angels or all Created Vnderstanding Beings Superiour to men having a Corporeal Indument or Clothing does so exactly agree with the Old Pythagorick Cabbala yet have we reason to think that it was not therefore meerly borrowed or derived from thence by the Ancient Fathers but that they were led into it by the Scripture it self For first the Historick Phaenomena of Angels in the Scripture are such as cannot well be otherwise Salved than by supposing them to have Bodies and then not to lay any stress upon those words of the Psalmist Who maketh his Angels Spirits and Ministers a flame of fire though with good reason by the Ancient Fathers interpreted to this sense because they may possibly be understood otherwise as sometime they are by Rabbinical Commentators nor to insist upon those passages of S. Paul where he speaks of the Tongues of Angels and of the Voice of an Arch-Angel and such like there are several other Places in Scripture which seem plainly to confirm this Opinion As first that of our Saviour before mentioned to this purpose Luke the 20. the 35. They who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the Resurrection from the dead neither Marry nor are given in Marriage neither can they die any more for they are Equal unto the Angels For were Angels utterly devoid of all Bodies then would the Souls of Good men in a State of Separation and without any Resurrection be rather Equal to Angels than after a Resurrection of their Bodies Wherefore the Natural meaning of these words seems to be this as St. Austin hath interpreted them that the Souls of Good men after the Resurrection shall have Corpora Angelica Angelical Bodies and Qualia sunt Angelorum Corpora such Bodies as those of Angels are Wherein it is supposed that Angels also have Bodies but of a very different kind from those of ours here Again that of St. Jude where he writeth thus of the Devils The Angels which kept not their First Estate or rather according to the Vulgar Latin Suum Principatum Their own Principality but left thei◠Proper Habitation or Dwelling House hath he reserved in everlasting Chains under darkness unto the Judgement of the Great Day In which words it is first Implied that the Devils were Created by God Pure as well as the other Angels but that they kept not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their own Principality That is their Lordly Power and Dominion over their Worser and Inferiour part they having also a certain Duplicity in their Nature of a Better and Worser Principle of a Superiour Part which ought to Rule and Govern and of an Inferiour which out to be Governed nor is it indeed otherwise easily conceivable how they should be Capable of Sinning And this Inferiour Part in Angels seems to have a respect to something that is Corporeal or Bodily in them also as well as it hath in men But then in the next place St. Jude addeth as the Immediate Result and Natural Consequent of these Angels Sinning that they thereby Left or Lost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suum Proprium Domicilium That is not only their Dwelling Place at Large those Etherial Countries and Heavenly Regions above but also their Proper Dwelling House or Immediate Mansion to wit their Heavenly Body For as much as that Heavenly Body which Good men expect after the Resurrection is thus called by St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Habitation or Dwelling House that is from Heaven The Heavenly Body is the Proper House or Dwelling Clothing or Indument both of Angelical and Humane Souls and this is that which makes them fit Inhabitants for the Heavenly Regions This I say was the Natural effect and Consequent of these Angels Sinning their Leaving or Loosing their Pure Heavenly Body which became thereupon forthwith Obscured and Incrassated the Bodies of Spirits Incorporate always bearing a Correspondent Purity or Impurity to the different disposition of their Mind or Soul But then again in the last place that which was thus in Part the Natural Result of their Sin was also by the Just Judgment of God converted into their Punishment For their Etherial Bodies being thus changed into Gross Aerial Feculent and Vaporous ones themselves were Immediately hereupon as St. Peter in the Parallel Place expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cast down into Tartarus and there Imprisoned or Reserved in Chains Under Darkness until the Judgment of the Great Day Where it is observable that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by St. Peter is the very same that Apollodorus and other Greek Writers frequently make use of in a like case when they speak of the Titan's being Cast down from Heaven which seems to have been Really nothing else but this Fall of Angels Poetically Mythologized And by Tartarus here in all probability is meant this Lower Caliginous Air or Atmosphere of the Earth according to that of St. Austin concerning these
Act alone without Vital Union with any Body If Natural to the Soul to Enliven a Body then not probable that it should be kept so long in an Unnatural State of Separation Page 799 800 Again Probable from Scripture That wicked Souls after Death have Punishment of Sense or Pain besides Remorse of Conscience which not easily Conceivable How they should have without Bodies Thus Tertullian He adding That Men have the same Shape or Effigies after this Life which they had here Though indeed he drive the business too far so as to make the Soul it self to be a Body Figurate and Colourate Page 800 801 But Irenaeus plainly supposed the Soul after Death being Incorporeal to be Adapted to a Body such as has the same Character and Figure with its Body here in this Life Page 801 802 Origen also of this Perswasion That Souls after Death have certain Subtile Bodies retaining the same Characterizing Form which their Terrestrial Bodies had His Opinion That Apparitions of the Dead are from the Souls themselves surviving in that which is called a Luciform Body As also that Saint Thomas did not doubt but that the Body of a Soul departed might appear every way like the Former onely be disbelieved our Saviour's appearing in the Same Solid Body which he had before Death Page 802 804 Our Saviour telling his Disciples That a Spirit had no Flesh and Bones that is no Solid Body as himself then had seems to Imply them to have Thinner Bodies which they may Visibly Appear in Thus in Apollonius is Touch made the Sign to distinguish a Ghost Appearing from a Living Man Our Saviour's Body after his Resurrection according to Origen in a Middle State betwixt This Gross or Solid Body of ours and That of a Ghost Page 804 A place of Scripture which as interpreted by the Fathers would Naturally Imply the Soul of our Saviour after Death not to have been quite Naked of all Body but to have had a Corporeal Spirit Moses and Elias Visibly appearing to our Saviour had therefore True Bodies Page 804 805 That the Regenerate here in this Life have a certain Earnest of their Future Inheritance which is their Spiritual or Heavenly Body Gathered from Scripture by Irenaeus and Novatian Which Praelibations of the Spiritual Body cannot so well consist with a Perfect Separation from all Body after Death till the Day of Judgement Page 805 806 This Opinion of Irenaeus Origen and others supposed by them not at all to Clash with the Christian Article of the Resurrection Nothing in this Point determined by us Page 806 The Last thing in the Pythagorick Cabbala That Daemons or Angels and indeed all Created Understanding Beings consist as well as Men of Soul and Body Incorporeal and Corporeal Vnited together Thus Hierocles Vniversally of all the Rational Nature and that no Incorporeal Substance besides the Supreme Deity is Compleat without the Conjunction of a Body God the Onely Incorporeal in this Sense and not a Mundane but Supra-Mundane Soul Page 806 808 Origen's full Agreement with this Old Pythagorick Cabbala That Rational Creatures are neither Body nor yet without Body but Incorporeal Substances having a Corporeal Indument Page 808 809 Origen misrepresented by Huetius as asserting Angels not to Have Bodies but to Be Bodies whereas he plainly acknowledged the Humane Soul to be Incorporeal and Angels also to have Souls He proveth Incorporeal Creatures from the Scriptures which though themselves not Bodies yet always Use Bodies Whereas the Deity is neither Body nor yet clothed with a Body as the Proper Soul thereof Page 809 810 Some of the Fathers so far from supposing Angels altogether Incorporeal that they ran into the other Extream and concluded them altogether Corporeal that is to be All Body and Nothing else The Middle betwixt both these the Origenick and Phythagorick Hypothesis That they consist of Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance Soul and Body Joyned together The Generality of the Ancient Fathers for neither of those Extreams That they did not suppose Angels to be perfectly Unbodied Spirits Evident from their affirming Devils as the Greek Philosophers did Demons to be Delighted with the Nidours of Sacrifices as having their Vapourous Bodies or Airy Vehicles refreshed thereby Thus Porphyrius and before him Celsus Amongst the Christians besides Origen Justin Athenagoras Tatianus c. S. Basil concerning the Bodies of Demons or Devils being Nourished with Vapours not by Organs but throughout their whole Substance Page 810 812 Several of the Fathers plainly asserting both Devils and Angels to consist of Soul and Body Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance Joyned together Saint Austine Claudianus Mamertus Fulgentius Joannes Thessalonicensis and Psellus who Philosophizeth much concerning this Page 812 814 That some of the Ancients when they called Angels Incorporeal understood Nothing else thereby but onely that they had not Grosse but Subtile Bodies Page 814 815 The Fathers though herein Happening to Agree with the Philosophick Cabbala yet seemed to have been led thereunto by Scripture As from that of our Saviour They who shall obtain the Resurrection of the Dead shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Equal to the Angels that is according to Saint Austine shall have Angelical Bodies From that of Saint Jude That Angels Sinning lost their Own Proper Dwelling-House that is their Heavenly Body called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Saint Paul which made them Fit Inhabitants of the Heavenly Regions and thereupon Cast down into the Lower Tartarus interpreted by Saint Austine to be this Caliginous Air or Atmo-Sphear of the Earth Again From that Fire said to have been Prepared for the Devils which being not to be taken Metaphorically therefore as Psellus concludeth Implies them to be Bodied because an Incorporeal Substance alone and not Vitally Vnited to any Body cannot be Tormented with Fire Page 815 817 Now if all Created Incorporeals Superiour to Men be Souls vitally Vnited to Bodies and never quite Separate from all Body then Probable that Humane Souls after Death not quite Naked from all Body as if they could Live and Act compleatly without it a Priviledge Superiour to that of Angels and proper to the Deity Nor is it at all Conceivable How Imperfect Beings could have Sense and Imagination without Bodies Origen Contra Celsum Our Soul in its own Nature Incorporeal alwaies Standeth in need of a Body suitable to the place wherein it is And accordingly Sometimes Putteth Off what it had before and Sometimes again Putteth On something New Where the following words being vitiated Origen's Genuine Sense restored Evident that Origen distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul Translated Tabernacle from the Earthly House he understanding by the former a Thin Spirituous Body which is a Middle betwixt the Earthly and the Heavenly and which the Soul remaineth still clothed with after Death This Opinion of Origen's That the Soul after Death not quite Separate from all Body never reckoned up in the Catalogue of his Errours Origen not Taxed